Strangelove wrote:Meh, most of us know our prospects much better than the schmucks who write those articles at HF.

dbr wrote:Hockeysfuture is a terrible resource for drawing conclusions like this, and it's unfair to expect something that is offered for free to be anything otherwise.

Free references are unlikely to be as good as paid consultants - at evaluating hockey organizations or anything else. Nobody projects the future with 20/20 vision. However, HF appears impartial, deserves credit for collecting & organizing information from the public domain, and provides a point of reference.

We may agree that since performance review accuracy decreases with time frame & # of events, it's too early (4 years) to pass judgment on Gillis'. This also places his 2011 award as GM of the year in perspective.

It's not too early to entertain the review process by comparing available performance indicators. Stocking prospects is part of what Gillis is responsible for. HF offers a summary of the Canucks prospects at the beginning and present in Gillis' reign.

The team that Dave Nonis iced in his last season here was an absolute joke. In fact there were a good half dozen+ players from that Club who never played in the NHL again.

Gillis got the core of what was a crap team at the time and quickly improved it. He then took it another step forward after 2 seasons and the team got with in an eyelash of winning a cup.

If you are crying about Keith Ballard or Steve Bernier, you quite clearly have missed the bigger picture.

Not every move is going to work out you have to look at the aggregate, and on the aggregate GMMG has been absolutely fantastic in his 4 years.

I will say this in Royaldude's defense.

1) That 2007/2008 team was decimated with injuries to the blue line that year. Granted - the team wasn't all that great but they were definitely better than their standings. They would have been a playoff team had they been healthy. This core, in the previous year, garnered 105 points in the regular season.

2) Although I agree with you (Potatoe) in regards to Gillis, I think we also have to keep in mind that a lot of our younger players were making some series strides into their development around the time Gillis replaced Nonis. When the 2009 season started, it was clear that guys like Raymond, Burrows, and Kesler had taken gigantic leaps in their game.

With all that being said though, I think Royaldude's overall assessment of Gillis is a little too harsh/unwarranted.......although for the life of me, I do NOT understand Gillis' logic in making that Hodgson deal at the deadline this past year. Even if Hodgson's dad was a head case and Hodgson needed to be move, why on earth would one trade him for a "work in progress" like Zack Kassian?

If you're going to ship Hodgson out, why not get a player that will make an immediate impact? Stanley Cup contending teams should be adding pieces that can help them now.........not "work in progress.'"

ESQ wrote:This is what I don't get - RD says big deal, Gillis inherited the core, but Nonis had the same core and missed the playoffs 2 out of 3 years.

This is only a half truth.

-The 2005/2006 core was still WCE and was in decline. -The "new" core came into effect during the 2006/07 season. During this season, the team garnered 105 regular season points.-In 2007/08, the team was decimated with injuries to the blue line. I am quite positive that this team would have made the playoffs had this not been the case.-In 2008/09 (when Gillis took over), this completely coincided with the massive leap in development of Kesler, Burrows, and Raymond. All 3 of these guys took very huge steps this year.

With Naslund, Linden, and Morrison off the books, Gillis also had a shitload of money to play with.........which allowed him to sign Pavol Demitra and Mats Sundin.

ESQ wrote:This is what I don't get - RD says big deal, Gillis inherited the core, but Nonis had the same core and missed the playoffs 2 out of 3 years. Gillis has won the President's Trophy 2/4 years and gotten more playoff wins than Burke/Nonis combined in over 10 years.

When I think of the Nonis years, I think of Brad Isbister being slotted in on the first line. I thought Nonis was terrible at identifying team needs and evaluating players to fit those needs. Nonis built a team of 2 first-liners and a slew of 3rd/4th liners, whereas Gillis has built a team of 3 first liners and a slew of 2nd/3rd liners.

Dude, think outside your Gillis Loving Box for Fuck Sakes. Nonis did not get the chance to see the core of this team, the only players that fucking count, hit their prime, ie The Sedins, Kesler, Luongo, Burrows, Bieksa his own draft picks, ie Grabner, Raymond, Schneider, Elder, Hansen. I'd throw in Bourdon but we know that story.

Gillis was the definite benefactor of seeing the core of this team hit prime time of their careers, ie the 2007-08 season. Too bad for Nonis. When Nonis took over in 2004, Kesler was drafted the previous summer in 2003, the kid was nowhere near the player he is now under the Nonis era, cause duh, he was still fucking green and sucking on Moms tit. Same can be said about Burrows as well. I mean, were the Sedins ready to win the Scoring Title and MVP honors of the NHL under Nonis? Fuck no, they were still developing. Gillis again, benefitting from good fucking timing. As for the supporting players, ie 3rd and 4th line, 5th and 6th defenseman, they do not make this team, fucking interchangeable, there are a million Higgins, Lappieres, Malhotras, Pahlssons, Romes, Alberts, Weises, Booths out there, they litter the hockey Landscape. The only players that fucking count on this team are the core that I mention above. the only addition to that core by Gillis is Hamhius, wow, a hard signing, Danny was pretty much begging to come back home to BC. Hamhius and Tanev are really, the only two additons I like of his to this team. Too bad numb nuts had to trade a big chunk of our futures for Ballard prior to signing Hamhius. But hey, every team could use a 6th, 7th defenseman making 4.2 million a year. I won't even bother about the dumb blonde - Booth, you all know how I feel about him.

There is no arguing that Nonis draft record in 3 years as GM of the Canucks puts Gillis draft record of 4 years to date as GM of the Canucks to fucking shame. I can only imagine how good Bourdon was gonna be. Not a bad record at the draft table by Nonis in only 3 years as a GM, fucking hell, Schneider and Edler??? one a late first round pick the other a 2nd round pick? No excuses for Gillis sucking, he's been picking in the same ball park as Nonis did with those two.

Last edited by RoyalDude on Thu May 31, 2012 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Every one must come under scrutiny, or you stagnate. I read the posts and for the most part they make sense...pro along with con. There are areas that MG can improve in and he has also made some incredible improvements in some areas. But the pictures not finished

Farhan Lalji wrote:although for the life of me, I do NOT understand Gillis' logic in making that Hodgson deal at the deadline this past year. Even if Hodgson's dad was a head case and Hodgson needed to be move, why on earth would one trade him for a "work in progress" like Zack Kassian?

Brilliant trade eh. Trading Hodgson for a player who was parked in the minors that has baggage. LOL! Wow.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

When comparing the Messier signing in Vancouver to the Sundin signing here, I really don't know which one was more of the failed expensive experiment. Pretty much flip a coing. Both were just mailing it in, collecting fat checks before riding off to the sunset. Hats off to them, I'm sure their bank accounts are for the better because of it. Let's just hope that Gillis has been singing the song "We Don't Get Fooled Again" Since then.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

When comparing the Messier signing in Vancouver to the Sundin signing here, I really don't know which one was more of the failed expensive experiment. Pretty much flip a coing. Both were just mailing it in, collecting fat checks before riding off to the sunset. Hats off to them, I'm sure their bank accounts are for the better because of it. Let's just hope that Gillis has been singing the song "We Don't Get Fooled Again" Since then.

The only problem with your argument RD is that you are judging Nonis' picks 7 to 8 years after they were drafted and and Gillis' picks 4 years after... of course they won't have developed the same...give your head a shake...

When comparing the Messier signing in Vancouver to the Sundin signing here, I really don't know which one was more of the failed expensive experiment. Pretty much flip a coing. Both were just mailing it in, collecting fat checks before riding off to the sunset. Hats off to them, I'm sure their bank accounts are for the better because of it. Let's just hope that Gillis has been singing the song "We Don't Get Fooled Again" Since then.

I will say one thing about Sundin.

I was happy that he played for us and think that he brought a lot more to the table than he got credit.

The guy helped Kesler, and was also starting to find his game again down the stretch. In the playoffs that year, he was a PPG player if I recall correctly.

For a 38 year old to come in and help ANYONE half-season in, is a tough task. Given his situation, I think Sundin played fairly well.

Has anyone noted his Mark Cuban like upgrades to the dressing rooms, weight rooms and his reaching out to make sure the players know they are appreciated, the environment they work in is grade fukin A and the team is there with respect to the needs of them and their families? (egos need this shit and don't kid yourself pro athletes have big fukin egos....)

RoyalDude wrote:There is no arguing that Nonis draft record in 3 years as GM of the Canucks puts Gillis draft record of 4 years to date as GM of the Canucks to fucking shame. I can only imagine how good Bourdon was gonna be. Not a bad record at the draft table by Nonis in only 3 years as a GM, fucking hell, Schneider and Edler??? one a late first round pick the other a 2nd round pick? No excuses for Gillis sucking, he's been picking in the same ball park as Nonis did with those two.

Depends whether you want to give the 2004 year to Nonis, I'm not sure whether Burkie served out his contract that year but that would have covered the majority of prep for that draft (which netted the Canucks Schneider, Edler, Mike Brown and Hansen).

Other than that with Dave Nonis we have the 2005 draft (Bourdon, Raymond), 2006 (Grabner and nobody else) and 2007 (literally nobody - perhaps the worst Canucks draft ever). Three NHL players in three years is not good, and it's been long enough that we can close the book on virtually everyone else.

As for Mike Gillis' drafting like I keep saying it's preposterous to pretend to know whether any of these kids are going to end up having successful careers yet but from each draft there are still a number of kids we can hold out hope on:

2008 Hodgson has become an NHL player and Sauve could play one day

2009 Schroeder, Cannata and "Calder" Connauton are progressing nicely and then there's Rodin and Andersson who may pan out

2010 McNally and Polasek offer some promise

2011 Jensen, Labate and Corrado all look like pretty good picks from last year.

Basically if two of Jordan Schroeder, Yan Sauve, Joe Cannata, Kevin Connauton, Anton Rodin, Peter Andersson, Patrick McNally and Adam Polasek become NHL regulars then Mike Gillis' first three years of drafting will be as successful as Dave Nonis' last three - and that's completely ignoring free agent acquisitions.

Dave Nonis' mantra when he was here was that he was not going to compromise the future as GM by trading draft picks and young players for immediate success (despite some truly awful deadline deals), whereas Mike Gillis determined that the team needed to get better in the present and addressed that need.

If in the end Nonis' work to build prospect depth does not turn out to be more productive than Gillis efforts to do the same, that will be a colossal failure of the Nonis era.

He took less than Gillis offered and the amount was pro-rated due to a late start.

Mats had a big effect on Ryan Keslers outlook as a pro as GM notes.

He was also a solid member of that team and had he not got hurt we may have beaten Chicago regardless of goalie and other issues.

Leves, don't tell me that you are one of those cats, ie "My Country Right or Wrong" in that you stand by your GM and players until they have been traded or fired and only then that is when you will officially let loose the hounds slagging them til the cows come home? Sort of like, how everyone turned on Hodgson when he was traded but when he was here, he was the next coming of Trevor Linden. I just find this kind of fan psychology kind of fascinating. Has there been a study done on this? Will it take having David Booth traded for the likes of you to finally feel at peace in criticizing him? Is it hard to criticize a Canuck Player or the GM manning the helm of your Vancouver Canucks in that GM's cannot and should not get slagged until the day they are handed their pink slips?

I find it fascinating how easily led the Canuck fans are by those wearing Canuck Uni's and those in Managerial positions. I mean, they could bitch slap the faces of most fans around here with their sloppy dicks and the fans would still be wearing Kaleidoscope eyes during, in awe of the fact that they are getting bitch slapped by their dicks.

Last edited by RoyalDude on Thu May 31, 2012 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Farhan Lalji wrote:1) That 2007/2008 team was decimated with injuries to the blue line that year. Granted - the team wasn't all that great but they were definitely better than their standings. They would have been a playoff team had they been healthy. This core, in the previous year, garnered 105 points in the regular season.

That team was crap.

Terrible depth up front, flanked by an aging and slow group of defenseman.

The only reason we got 105 points the year before was because Luongo had an MVP season and carried our asses. As soon as Lu's play slid the team totally fell apart.

Just look at our roster that year 6 or 7 of the guys who played significant minutes for us were out of the league the next year.

If you're going to ship Hodgson out, why not get a player that will make an immediate impact? Stanley Cup contending teams should be adding pieces that can help them now.........not "work in progress.'"

You can't look at specific moves on their own, you have to look at the over all picture.

The over all picture is 4 division titles, 2 presidents trophy's, and 6 playoff series wins in 4 years. That is an absolutely fantastic record.

As far as the Hodgson trade, who could we have brought in that would have gotten us by LA this year? In retrospect it's kind of a good thing we moved him for a young asset because it's quite clear this was not the year to go "all in".And it has been just about our core players, this team has had excellent depth at almost every position over the past 4 years.